Good Policy or Gun Grabbing?

The pres is a gun grabber over stepping his executive power

 

1. stopping corporate purchases.

Show me a news article where a criminal, mass shooting, etc, used a military grade machine gun or corporate bought gun. They virtually all stolen or mass produced cheap easily obtained. Most of the school shooting massacres are civilian spec handguns or small game rifles like the Bushmaster at Newtown.

2. preventing surplus miltary weapons from returning to states.

So we leave them in the hands of the middle east factions? That sounds swell for them.

My Mouser is old Israeli military service rifle surplus. Chambered in NATO7.62/WIN308. Makes an acceptable and affordable $2-300 hunting rifle. Guess that would have been illegal. So much for low income rural hunters.

Nothing in it sounds like 2A violations. Just useless, toothless policy.

 

Agreed. These 2 things will do nothing to stop mass shootings.

 

You're against closing loopholes? Why?

Why should corporations be able to hide gun purchases?

 

Did I say I was against these things? Saying that they won't do anything to stop mass shootings doesn't mean I object to them.

 

I think this means returning surplus military weapons through civilian channels will not be allowed.

I don't think the US will have a problem if surplus military grade weapons were returned via military channels for proper disposal or use in the military.

 

+1

There's already a law against murder. That doesn't stop people from murdering.

 

Great so let's legalize it wonder how that works out. Yes, we know writing in a law isn't gonna magically solve everything but things NEED to be regulated. You can't just let someone buy a gun without so much as a background check. We have speed laws, don't stop people from speeding. Drunk driving is a criminal offense, people still do it. Does that mean we should just let anyone do as they please.

 

Which is exactly why we need some voter ID laws. Since you agree that its not restricting freedoms to regulate consitutional rights, we should be good to go ahead and regulate both.

 

Well what actually would do a lot to cut down on firearm death and violence?

Answer: A law that severely restricted gun ownership, coupled with a mandatory buy-back program. Don't tell me that taking a couple hundred million firearms out of the public's hands wouldn't reduce the number of people killed. But of course - thats never going to happen.

So we're left with the Second Amendment "Catch-22":

a) Any law that actually would be effective is utterly unthinkable.

b) Any other law is a total waste of time.

 

Yes, I have no problem with voter IDs, there are a lot of things you need a regular ID for that should be a "constitutional right" don't see why weapons shouldn't fit this arrangement. An ex-con cannot vote btw even though it is their constitutional right to do so, how do you feel about that? Oh and don't compare the 2nd amendment to voter IDs, guns are far more dangerous than letting a couple of people who shouldn't be able to vote, vote. Apples and oranges. And yes, I do believe the fathers showed lack of foresight when they made the 2nd amendment. I'm 100% confident that if they could see the weapons being made today, they would immediately add detailed restrictions. Jesus comparing 18th century weapons to 21st century weapons, how do people not see that there is a clear difference between the times.

 

You can't prove that.


Since these measures don't affect any legal, law-abiding citizens at all, if they save even one life, it's worth it.

 

Weapons are only as dangerous as the person wielding them, but I do agree, lets use these two items as a compromise. Voter IDs required to vote and background checks for every gun purchase.

 

Can you name even one shooting that has occurred with corporation purchased gun or a military weapon brought back from overseas? Just more feel good legislation that won't do anything to stop the problem.

 

Problem is the average person doesn't know how dangerous them self can be at any given moment.

 

It really doesn't matter. The past is the past. Obviously you can't go back and change it.

What we're talking about the future. None of us can predict it, so there is no way you could possibly say that these measures won't do anything. If you can, let me know what the Powerball numbers are for tomorrow's drawing.

The fact remains that these loopholes exist, and it would be possible for someone who shouldn't have a gun to obtain a weapon through one of these loopholes. This could prevent that from happening and save lives. You're not be able to directly measure the impact, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it.

 

Does less guns equal less violence and death? Apparently not...

http://ksl.com/index/story/sid/26639259

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I found this interesting and given the title of this thread, very relevant.

 

I thought that the parallel between the two arguments might be helpful to enlighten liberals as to what they are asking.

 

So you really are going to push through and try to turn this topic into something it isn't?

 

No, just explaining my intent. Im done.

 

Okay then.

Have a nice day.

 

I'm pretty sure less guns create less innocent bystanders, manslaughter and mass killings. I can't find a logical reason why it wouldn't.

For many reasons(culture and law to name a few), you can't compare differ countries to see what the outcome of more gun control would be.